Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CORPORATION BANK vs MR RUCHIER SRIVASTAVA on 2 May 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Debts Recovely Tribuna!-II, Delhi TAlLt74l2024 CORPORATION BANK Vs MR RUCHIER SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS 02.05.2025 Item no. 86 Present: Mr. Raman Kumar Singh, counsel for applicant bank. None for defendants. Matter is taken through Video Conferencing/ hybrid Mode.
2. IA no.1OL9l2O25 has been filed by the applicant bank for withdrawal of the present TA.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank submits that the in terms of the settlement the Respondent no.l & 2 have paid a sum of Rs.6,25,000/- on 04.02.2025 in the subject account. He further submits that he wish to withdraw the present TA. Ld. Counsel for applicant bank also prayed for refund of the court fee and return of original documents.
4. The Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank has also requested for refund of the court fees. It is submitted that the matter has been settled and therefore, the court fees may be refunded as per provisions contained in the rules. In this regard the Honble Supreme Couft has passed the order in SLP(c) No(s).723/2023 dated 28.01.2025 titled as Jage Ram Vs Ved Kaur & Ors.Ihe Honble Supreme Couft has considered the matter and has held that: Para 6- The refund of court fees is permissible only if, the maxer is referred to Arbitratio4 Conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the case is decded in terms of such a settlement and not otherwis. Para 7- In the case at hand, the settlement in terms of which the s*ond aOpealgldsided by the High I I i I i I
Court is not on reference to any of the above authorities/fora rather it was an amiable seXlement out of the court. Para 8- Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the court fees and the High Coutt has not committed any error or illegaliU in refusing such a prayer."
5. In view of the above, it is clear that if the matter has been settled out of the couft without any reference from the couft or Tribunal, the couft fees cannot be refunded. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant bank for refund of court fees is hereby declined. IA no.1o19l2O25 is allowed. Registry is directed to return the origina! documents after keeping the certified copies on records. TALlT4l;o24 is dismissed as withdrawn. Allthe pending lAs stand disposed of. File be consigned to record room. (susHrl KUffi RAsroGI) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II, Delhi